Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland partially reopens discovery in this civil rights action to permit limited expert discovery after defense counsel changed due to a conflict of interest. The court permits each nurse and the plaintiffs to retain one expert, denies leave for the nurses to file pretrial dispositive motions, and awards plaintiffs reasonable costs associated with expert discovery. The order also establishes deadlines for expert disclosures, Rule 702 motions, motions in limine, the pretrial conference, trial, and settlement negotiations.
Holdings
- The court reopened discovery for the limited purpose of expert discovery and allowed each nurse and the plaintiffs to retain one expert.
- The court denied the nurses' request for leave to file pretrial dispositive motions.
- Defendants must reimburse plaintiffs for reasonable costs associated with discovery of the nurses' expert proof, including expert fees incurred during plaintiffs' depositions and reasonable legal fees associated with those depositions.
- The denial of leave to file pretrial dispositive motions does not bar motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which may be filed at any time.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should reopen discovery to permit limited expert discovery after the defendant-nurses obtained new counsel.
- Whether the defendant-nurses should receive leave to file pretrial dispositive motions after the prior deadline had passed.
- Whether the additional costs caused by the limited reopening of discovery should be imposed on plaintiffs or defendants.
- Whether motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction remain permissible despite the denial of leave to file other pretrial dispositive motions.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460, 467 (2025)(followed)
- Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Truett, 249 F.2d 215, 217 (4th Cir. 1957)(followed)
- Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 241 (1977)(followed)
- Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109, 121 (2024)(followed)
- Ballard v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, No. 5:17-CV-03057, 2018 WL 4964361, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 15, 2018)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.